From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: Portmap - was Re: Does mountd/statd really need to listen on a privileged port?? Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 09:28:54 -0400 Message-ID: <462CB496.6000308@RedHat.com> References: <17958.48121.280256.493824@notabene.brown> <20070419012154.GB19063@javifsp.no-ip.org> <17960.11704.321124.641669@notabene.brown> <4629120C.60803@RedHat.com> <17964.12324.307985.65596@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Matthias Koenig , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, Olaf Kirch , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Javier_Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino_Pe=F1a?= , anibal@debian.org To: Neil Brown Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hfyaa-0001Di-6G for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:28:20 -0700 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1Hfyac-0001o3-Gq for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Apr 2007 06:28:22 -0700 In-Reply-To: <17964.12324.307985.65596@notabene.brown> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Neil Brown wrote: > On Friday April 20, SteveD@redhat.com wrote: >> Is there any particular reason your staying with portmap >> instead of moving on to rpcbind? > > I want distros to include the functionality I want (non-priv users > cannot remove registrations of non-priv ports registered by priv > users). Given the two approaches: > - please use newer version of portmap > - please dump portmap and use rpcbind > I suspect the former to be more effective. Probably... but the latter will need to happen if/when IPv6 supports is wanted... > > I'm not against moving to rpcbind, it is probably a very good idea. > But I expect there to be more resistance. > If everyone goes to rpcbind and no-one uses 'my' portmap, that would > be fine with me. Good... and I didn't think you were against anything... I wanted let you know there was an alternative > >> I (hastily) created two git trees: >> git://git.infradead.org/~steved/libtirpc.git >> git://git.infradead.org/~steved/rpcbind.git >> >> I think if you take a look, you'll see that >> this code may not be as mature as the portmap >> code, but its a much better start... imho.. > > Yes, very hasty. Several #temporary# and back~ files :-) Yeah... for some reason those temporary files are in the the tar ball... I'll work to get that cleaned up.. > > I notice that it has a concept of who 'owns' a registration, but it > only works if unix-domain sockets are used for the registration. > Adding 'superuser' ownership for localhost/privport registrations is > probably a 3 line patch.... I'm not sure I understand.. are you talking about how getowner() is being used? > > So: yes. Full steam ahead on rpcbind. But short-term I think it is a > good idea to give portmap a little more life. I agreed... portmapper will be around for a long while... steved ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs